2005 (9) TMI 115 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing a reference application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
The primary issue addressed in this judgment is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked to condone the delay in filing a reference application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Arguments and Contentions:
- The learned Standing Counsel argued that the High Court has the power to condone the delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- The counsel for the assessee contended that, based on a previous Division Bench decision, Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to reference applications under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act.

Relevant Judgments and Statutory Provisions:
- The Division Bench in the case of M/s. Good Earth Steel Pvt. Ltd. held that the Central Excise Act is a self-contained code and does not allow for the application of the general provisions of the Limitation Act despite Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
- Various Supreme Court judgments were considered, including CST v. Parsan Tools and Plants, Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar, Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, and Commissioner of Customs v. Sadiq Futehally, which discuss the applicability of the Limitation Act to special statutes.

Statutory Interpretation:
- Section 35H of the Central Excise Act allows the Commissioner or other parties to apply to the High Court within 180 days to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer any question of law.
- The court examined different statutes like the Income-tax Act, Customs Act, and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which have specific provisions restricting the condonation of delay, unlike Section 35H of the Central Excise Act.

Legal Precedents:
- The Supreme Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Khub Chand Baghel and Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra discussed the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the scheme and nature of the special law could imply exclusion of the Limitation Act's provisions.
- The Full Bench decision in Ajijul Haq Kauran Naqvi v. The State and E. Sefton & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of India supported the view that delay can be condoned unless expressly excluded by the statute.

Court's Conclusion:
- The court concluded that the Central Excise Act is a special statute and a self-contained code. The Act provides different periods of limitation for various matters and does not expressly allow for the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delays in filing reference applications under Section 35H.
- The court agreed with the Division Bench in M/s. Good Earth Steel Pvt. Ltd. that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone the delay in filing a reference application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act.

Final Judgment:
- The application for condonation of delay was rejected, affirming that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to reference applications under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act.